I think THE BIG LEBOWSKI finished quite finished if you know what I mean. It's one of my favorite films of all time and I've watched it more than 20 times till now and every time the film feels more complete than before...

How about the open ending of Revenge of the Sith? Will Yoda and Obi-Wan come back? Will Anakin ever be redeemed for falling to the Dark Side? What the hell is gonna happen to those twins? Since Lucas said this is the last Star Wars film, I guess we'll never know...

What annoys me most are films that seem to have an end and then suddenly there is a 'twist'. John Carpenter is the worst at this. For example, the end of The Fog where you think all the zombies have been defeated and then suddenly they reappear or the end of Friday the Thirteenth where Jason's body is lying on the ground but when they cut back it has suudenly disappeared. They give me a feeling that evrythings has been left up in the air. I also agree about the Matrix. When that finished I felt the story had been told to its conclusion. As a result I have not seen any of the sequels.

Schindler and I are like peas in a pod. We both made shells for the Germans, it's just that mine worked!

The Thin Man wrote: or the end of Friday the Thirteenth where Jason's body is lying on the ground but when they cut back it has suudenly disappeared...

ya - i wish they would've made a sequel to that so we could've finally found out what happened to jason...does he survive...does he get re-habilitated and integrated back into society...or does he kill ore half naked bad-dialogue filled teens...or maybe he goes to space...or maybe he gets to fight some dude named freddy...or maybe - just maybe - he gets re-invented by some music video director in a glossy, flashy, but possibly less-fulfilling type way...!!! WHAT HAPPENS!!!! I NEED TO KNOW!!!!!!

I don't know...a prequel? Where could they go with that, that wouldn't end up a retread of the Russell flick? I guess the temptation would be to at least end the prequel, if not base the whole thing on the Norweigan camp.

I'd watch it - but I'd probably hate myself afterwards. I wanta film to touch on what they achieved with JC's remake, but (Switch from Matrix)

"Not like this.....not like - >unk<"

"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

I would much rather see a continuation of the original story, much like Dark Horse comics did.
Sure its been twenty odd years, but layer on the hair & beard & frostbite damage & Kurt's good to go.
Gotta have Childs.

If the prequel is about the events at the other camp, don't bother.

If the prequel reaches back further somehow, I'm listening.
But it better be good, lads.

This prequel idea sounds stupid. I mean Carpentar's intent seemed to be to use the original film as a sorta vague history for the in the know fans....ie one can imagine the events at the Norwegian camp pretty well if you have seen the Hawks version yet the story is accesible to the newcomer. His film always seemed like a continuation of the story rather than a remake but with the bonus of reintroducing the shape shifting described in the short story. If nothing else a prequel will be more like remaking the events of the Hawks film (discovering the space craft, attempting to unearth it and destroying it in the process, finding The Thing, thawing it and the havoc that ensues etc etc)

try to remember / imagine watching it for the first time...just what the fuck is going on in the beginning? Why are those guys shooting at that Husky? Those BASTARDS! Wait...what...huh?...well don't do that!...'yup, that's what you get sucker!

The setup is impeccable, the set-up and subsequent fake-out with Clark is brilliant, just what the fuck is Childs up to when he's offscreen coupled with the fact that, much like The Big Sleep, questions go unanswered.

Combine that with the early implications of cabin fever, claustrophobia, a healthy dose of paranoia and, as Locke mentioned above, the fact that a character who may be the Thing might not even be aware of it...the psychological effects on the viewer are just as vivid as the still shocking FX. Rare combination, that.

Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.

Meanwhile, what do you guys think happened at the end of the 25th Hour?

SPOILERS.

Yes we see Ed Norty bot being driven to jail by his dad who tells a whole story about how his life could turn out if he decided to turn off the freeway and just drive him somewhere and let him do a runner and it goes into this brilliant montage and voice over of Brian Cox narrating all of Ed Norton's new life, all the way to him growing older.

Then the film ends.

So, did this actually happen? Or did he decide to go to jail still? Did Brian Cox turn off the freeway or carry on to the jail? What do you think happened, people?! Also be sure to add spoilers in when talking about it in EACH post if you do. This is obviously the most IMPORTANT part of the film.

I really like that ending by the way. Someone's life being told to them. The ultimate escape. Looking back I find this extremely moving. That we are always free, no matter what we think life dictates to us. As long as you don't literally put yourself in bloody jail that is. Guess I better give those Zoner subscriptions back to the Zone's sponsors then or they'll be trouble.

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Meanwhile, what do you guys think happened at the end of the 25th Hour?

SPOILERS.

Yes we see Ed Norty bot being driven to jail by his dad who tells a whole story about how his life could turn out if he decided to turn off the freeway and just drive him somewhere and let him do a runner and it goes into this brilliant montage and voice over of Brian Cox narrating all of Ed Norton's new life, all the way to him growing older.

Then the film ends.

So, did this actually happen? Or did he decide to go to jail still? Did Brian Cox turn off the freeway or carry on to the jail? What do you think happened, people?! Also be sure to add spoilers in when talking about it in EACH post if you do. This is obviously the most IMPORTANT part of the film.

I really like that ending by the way. Someone's life being told to them. The ultimate escape. Looking back I find this extremely moving. That we are always free, no matter what we think life dictates to us. As long as you don't literally put yourself in bloody jail that is.

SPOILERS!11!

I think I remember thinking he went to prison in reality; the voiceover sequence was almost like a moment of clarity, about how Norton's character could and probably should have lived his life, and maybe it was something Brian Cox told his son to give him a glimmer of hope entering prison. But I almost feel like they wouldn't have told his entire life story if it actually happened, do you know what I mean? Like they would have just shown him escaping and then, the possibilities would have been limitless. But it seemed like a fantasy just because of how specific (and how happy) it was, like that was his version of what life would be like if he could just get away from his past.

Yeah, I can see it from that POV too. I think Spike Lee was a bit bored with an ending that could have gone one way or the other and decided for something more clever but ultimately more contemplative than physically definite. See, the dreamer and optimist in me likes to think that the filmmakers went to all that trouble to do that 5 odd minute sequence as they were trying to indicate that THIS IS what actually happened and that there is so much hope in one's freedom to escape and redeem oneself, that this is what the human spirit is capable of, but let's give it this vague ambiguous look by making it possibly a dream state as it's too much of a happy and even immoral ending to insult the audience's intelligence. Part of me likes to think that. The other part of me just doesn't wanna imagine the guy going to prison and instead embarking on a life of Hell, but to be honest, I'm partially with you too Ribbons. I think that he also could own up to his crimes and gets on with the jail term, and that the dream scene is something for him to aim for. The light that he wishes to reach for, to make him a better man from his now pit of an seemingly unreturnable dark hole, something that he can't climb back from. I mean, that's it, he's reached that point of no return, nothing can he can do can make him make him good again. But he's given something that he needs to believe in, and if he can do this, then it's something that he can reach for and help him survive. The ultimate escape, to go and find a decent and good happy life.

So presented with this hypathetical life, what does he do? Go to jail and be honest and try to earn it (making his jail term more endurable)? Or simply say 'fuck it. All I did was deal drugs, I didn't hurt anyone. I'm sorry already. Don't send me to HELL for it. Let's use some poetic justice here. Let's RUUUNN!!!!'

I'm always gonna be 50-50 on this one at the end of the day I think. I'm too hopeful I s'pose.

Yeah, I can see it from that POV too. I think Spike Lee was a bit bored with an ending that could have gone one way or the other and decided for something more clever but ultimately more contemplative than physically definite. See, the dreamer and optimist in me likes to think that the filmmakers went to all that trouble to do that 5 odd minute sequence as they were trying to indicate that THIS IS what actually happened and that there is so much hope in one's freedom to escape and redeem oneself, that this is what the human spirit is capable of, but let's give it this vague ambiguous look by making it possibly a dream state as it's too much of a happy and even immoral ending to insult the audience's intelligence. Part of me likes to think that. The other part of me just doesn't wanna imagine the guy going to prison and instead embarking on a life of Hell, but to be honest, I'm partially with you too Ribbons. I think that he also could own up to his crimes and gets on with the jail term, and that the dream scene is something for him to aim for. The light that he wishes to reach for, to make him a better man from his now pit of an seemingly unreturnable dark hole, something that he can't climb back from. I mean, that's it, he's reached that point of no return, nothing can he can do can make him make him good again. But he's given something that he needs to believe in, and if he can do this, then it's something that he can reach for and help him survive. The ultimate escape, to go and find a decent and good happy life.

So presented with this hypathetical life, what does he do? Go to jail and be honest and try to earn it (making his jail term more endurable)? Or simply say 'fuck it. All I did was deal drugs, I didn't hurt anyone. I'm sorry already. Don't send me to HELL for it. Let's use some poetic justice here. Let's RUUUNN!!!!'

I'm always gonna be 50-50 on this one at the end of the day I think. I'm too hopeful I s'pose.

Yeah, I'm a little split on it too.

SPOILERS

Either way I do think that the voiceover is kind of a testimony to humans' capacity for redemption and re-invention, even if we don't always get it right or if we don't follow through with our plans, or external conditions intrude on them. Just that little turn of the switch in our minds that tells us we need to make a change provides the character with a spark, at the very least, however small.

Ending of the original "Bedazzled" made you wonder if Stanley and the girl he's in love with had a chance of becoming a couple. I find that was more believable than the remake where Elliot meets a girl who looks EXACTLY (Re: Same actress) like the one who he was pursuing. I really think they should've stuck to the original ending.

What do people who've seen this film, make of Alex's visions? Seeing dead people all the time, etc. Do you find that this is part of his own imagination or that they really are ghosts for real? Or is it a bit of both?

I sorta hope a little bit for the sake of the drama of the film that they are real and that I'm not being conned by it just being a 'dream' as I couldn't believe how genuinely and real personally terrifying these 'ghosts' were. I hadn't been scared by anything in film on that level since God knows when. Something about them really got to you right deep inside, like it hit upon your real personal senses.

SPOILERS AGAIN.

Especailly the scene at the end where after Alex thought he was free when his Preacher Stepfather had been burnt to death, he actually turned up at the end and said that he would be always haunting Alex forever and would always be right there with him. I find that realistically scary.

What do people who've seen this film, make of Alex's visions? Seeing dead people all the time, etc. Do you find that this is part of his own imagination or that they really are ghosts for real? Or is it a bit of both?

I sorta hope a little bit for the sake of the drama of the film that they are real and that I'm not being conned by it just being a 'dream' as I couldn't believe how genuinely and real personally terrifying these 'ghosts' were. I hadn't been scared by anything in film on that level since God knows when. Something about them really got to you right deep inside, like it hit upon your real personal senses.

SPOILERS AGAIN.

Especailly the scene at the end where after Alex thought he was free when his Preacher Stepfather had been burnt to death, he actually turned up at the end and said that he would be always haunting Alex forever and would always be right there with him. I find that realistically scary.

I know I'm gonna sound lost up my own arse with this response, so just consider yourself duly warned. I think Xander's visions are initially representative of those chimeras you see at the corner of your vision; the things that have haunted man for centuries: fairies, aliens, giant man-eating sharks. The thing is, Xander, being a child, and a child on a limb- displaced by reality and the grounding, heartrending vicissitudes therein- pursues these visions, as to him they offer a recourse that the real world could never supply. Initially he's fearful of them, but, just as in the Jew's home, he finds out that once he pursues these chimeras and stops running from them, they become something joyful and enlightening. I guess if everyone turns around and actually looks at the demon chasing them, they'll see that this demon is reflective of themselves in all their virtues and faults, and it's not even a demon at all.

In my opinion, his talking to his dead dad near the end of the film was the last gasp of his childhood; after that he'll be an adult, who has lost his sense of humour, but "gained" a sense of irony in return. Whether or not he'll have an easy life, I'm not sure. Imaginative people can go one of two ways: they can carve out the devices of their own torture, or they can transcend to something else.

I think that cinematically speaking, the ghosts in Fanny & Alexander were Bergman's way of saying that for a child's fresh eyes, the world is something of limitless possibilites.

Man, this pretentious wanker speak just rolls off the tongue. That might be because I'm a pretentious wanker though.

What do people who've seen this film, make of Alex's visions? Seeing dead people all the time, etc. Do you find that this is part of his own imagination or that they really are ghosts for real? Or is it a bit of both?

I sorta hope a little bit for the sake of the drama of the film that they are real and that I'm not being conned by it just being a 'dream' as I couldn't believe how genuinely and real personally terrifying these 'ghosts' were. I hadn't been scared by anything in film on that level since God knows when. Something about them really got to you right deep inside, like it hit upon your real personal senses.

SPOILERS AGAIN.

Especailly the scene at the end where after Alex thought he was free when his Preacher Stepfather had been burnt to death, he actually turned up at the end and said that he would be always haunting Alex forever and would always be right there with him. I find that realistically scary.

I know I'm gonna sound lost up my own arse with this response, so just consider yourself duly warned. I think Xander's visions are initially representative of those chimeras you see at the corner of your vision; the things that have haunted man for centuries: fairies, aliens, giant man-eating sharks. The thing is, Xander, being a child, and a child on a limb- displaced by reality and the grounding, heartrending vicissitudes therein- pursues these visions, as to him they offer a recourse that the real world could never supply. Initially he's fearful of them, but, just as in the Jew's home, he finds out that once he pursues these chimeras and stops running from them, they become something joyful and enlightening. I guess if everyone turns around and actually looks at the demon chasing them, they'll see that this demon is reflective of themselves in all their virtues and faults, and it's not even a demon at all.

In my opinion, his talking to his dead dad near the end of the film was the last gasp of his childhood; after that he'll be an adult, who has lost his sense of humour, but "gained" a sense of irony in return. Whether or not he'll have an easy life, I'm not sure. Imaginative people can go one of two ways: they can carve out the devices of their own torture, or they can transcend to something else.

I think that cinematically speaking, the ghosts in Fanny & Alexander were Bergman's way of saying that for a child's fresh eyes, the world is something of limitless possibilites.

Spot on Sepp. Can't add anymore except to add that Strindberg quote which Bergman put in the movie: "Time and space do not exist; on an insignficant basis of reality the imagination spins............" which I think sums up the themes of childhood joys and terrors that run throughout this fantastic movie.

instant_karma wrote:I never really found this to be ambiguous. When the woman from the future says 'I'm in insurance.' I took that to mean that she was there as a back up to stop the guy if Cole failed.

but fail he did, and stop it she didn't.

now, if she says "I'm an insurance", then that could mean she was there to ensure he completed his task of going around the world with the plague.

Gilliam's commentary makes it explicit that the ending was intentionally ambiguous...

Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.

instant_karma wrote:I never really found this to be ambiguous. When the woman from the future says 'I'm in insurance.' I took that to mean that she was there as a back up to stop the guy if Cole failed.

but fail he did, and stop it she didn't.

now, if she says "I'm an insurance", then that could mean she was there to ensure he completed his task of going around the world with the plague.

Gilliam's commentary makes it explicit that the ending was intentionally ambiguous...

I haven't seen this movie for a long time, so I could be forgetting something obvious here, but what make's you think she failed to stop him? I thought the scene with her and the plague spreader on the plane was the final one. I figured it meant that although he'd released the sample at the airport, she's stop him spreading it across the globe, therefor limiting it's impact.

I watched Rules of Attraction again on HBO the other night. Great movie, highly recommended if you've never seen it before, but one thing that I never really understood was the ending of the film.

The 'Beek is speeding down the road on a motorcycle, and in voiceover he's talking about this girl he had a crush on who shot him down. He says "I told myself that there were things about her I'd remember forever, but as I went on I realized that all I could think of was--" And then the narration cuts out.

So, what I was wondering is why Avary does that, basically. Are we supposed to infer what the character is thinking, or is the point that it doesn't really matter (to him or to us?), or what?

Also, the film dealt with the absurdness of love. How people kind of tricked themselves into thinking they were in love when really they were just being selfish. So the end of the film...it doesn't really matter what he is saying. It is just going to be bullshit. Nihilism and lust mistaken for love.

TonyWilson wrote:Well it's either that or a great joke about the characters are all so shallow whatever he thinks will be completely worthless.

Heh, that could be. I love the scene in the film where Ian Somerhalder's character is thinking "I love you, Sean Bateman!" and Sean Bateman is thinking "I'm hungry."

Ha, yeh that's awesome. What did you think about the suicide? It was such a blindside and the only emotionally real bit in the film, but then even the way it was done was such a depressed teenager kinds of cliche thing, it was really interesting that ambivalence about it.

Ha, yeh that's awesome. What did you think about the suicide? It was such a blindside and the only emotionally real bit in the film, but then even the way it was done was such a depressed teenager kinds of cliche thing, it was really interesting that ambivalence about it.

I have to watch this flick again, because I think my view of 'God, these people are gentlemen' was actually the right intrepretation, you were meant to view it as an impartial bystander judging all of these people, yet in the process being little better than they were.

By the way, Rules of Attraction is also an excellent book. One of the great things about it is that the book and the movie are so different. I mean it is almost night and day. Thankfully, they are both excellent in their own respect and they offer two very different experiences. For those of you that do not know the author of the book, Bret Easton Ellis, also wrote Less Than Zero, American Psycho, and The Informers.

TonyWilson wrote:Well it's either that or a great joke about the characters are all so shallow whatever he thinks will be completely worthless.

Heh, that could be. I love the scene in the film where Ian Somerhalder's character is thinking "I love you, Sean Bateman!" and Sean Bateman is thinking "I'm hungry."

Ha, yeh that's awesome. What did you think about the suicide? It was such a blindside and the only emotionally real bit in the film, but then even the way it was done was such a depressed teenager kinds of cliche thing, it was really interesting that ambivalence about it.

That's a good question. I remember thinking it was interesting that Avary didn't show any of the bloodletting until after she was already dead, but I'm not sure if that was like an aesthetic thing or if he was trying to make some kind of a point.

I didn't really think it was out of place the first time I saw the movie, but for some reason it did seem to jar with the cynical tone when I watched it again. Maybe that tonal shift served some storytelling purpose, or maybe it was just a by-product of suicide itself being heavy subject matter. But it was another example of a character wanting an idealized version of another character, and then that other character's insensitivity to or ignorance of their feelings, so it does fit in some ways.

EDIT: this is going out on a bit of a limb here, but the girl who killed herself in the movie was the only character who wasn't looking for sex. Maybe the tragedy of the event (besides for the event itself) was that she fell for all the sweet, flowery concepts of romance that young kids in lust conjure up to get each other into bed (consciously or subconsciously). It's a dangerous game to play when the means seem more attractive than the end, because your entire relationship with the rest of the world is built on a lie, and you're the only one who doesn't know it. And also that might help explain (to myself, I guess) what I was driving at earlier, with the aesthetic remark, because the wrist-cutting is the closest thing to a sexual relationship with Sean that the girl will ever have.

Last edited by Ribbons on Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:53 am, edited 3 times in total.

TonyWilson wrote:Well it's either that or a great joke about the characters are all so shallow whatever he thinks will be completely worthless.

Heh, that could be. I love the scene in the film where Ian Somerhalder's character is thinking "I love you, Sean Bateman!" and Sean Bateman is thinking "I'm hungry."

Ha, yeh that's awesome. What did you think about the suicide? It was such a blindside and the only emotionally real bit in the film, but then even the way it was done was such a depressed teenager kinds of cliche thing, it was really interesting that ambivalence about it.

That's a good question. I remember thinking it was interesting that Avary didn't show any of the bloodletting until after she was already dead, but I'm not sure if that was like an aesthetic thing or if he was trying to make some kind of a point.

I didn't really think it was out of place the first time I saw the movie, but for some reason it did seem to jar with the cynical tone when I watched it again. Maybe that tonal shift served some storytelling purpose, or maybe it was just a by-product of suicide itself being heavy subject matter. But it was another example of a character wanting an idealized version of another character, and then that other character's insensitivity to or ignorance of their feelings, so it does fit in some ways.

And then contrast that with Sean's faux suicide attempt. When you trace it back: the girl kills herself because she can't have Sean who then goes and fakes a suicide attempt trying desperately to get Lauren who happens to be the one who discovered the girl.

Sean makes light of a suicide that he was partly responsible for causing...although unknowingly.

TonyWilson wrote:What did you think about the suicide? It was such a blindside and the only emotionally real bit in the film, but then even the way it was done was such a depressed teenager kinds of cliche thing, it was really interesting that ambivalence about it.

That's a good question. I remember thinking it was interesting that Avary didn't show any of the bloodletting until after she was already dead, but I'm not sure if that was like an aesthetic thing or if he was trying to make some kind of a point.

I didn't really think it was out of place the first time I saw the movie, but for some reason it did seem to jar with the cynical tone when I watched it again. Maybe that tonal shift served some storytelling purpose, or maybe it was just a by-product of suicide itself being heavy subject matter. But it was another example of a character wanting an idealized version of another character, and then that other character's insensitivity to or ignorance of their feelings, so it does fit in some ways.

And then contrast that with Sean's faux suicide attempt. When you trace it back: the girl kills herself because she can't have Sean who then goes and fakes a suicide attempt trying desperately to get Lauren who happens to be the one who discovered the girl.

Sean makes light of a suicide that he was partly responsible for causing...although unknowingly.

Yeah, he was a pretty big cad in that movie, to be sure. I love how he practically uses "but I tried to hurt myself!" as a pick-up line.

TonyWilson wrote:Well it's either that or a great joke about the characters are all so shallow whatever he thinks will be completely worthless.

Heh, that could be. I love the scene in the film where Ian Somerhalder's character is thinking "I love you, Sean Bateman!" and Sean Bateman is thinking "I'm hungry."

Ha, yeh that's awesome. What did you think about the suicide? It was such a blindside and the only emotionally real bit in the film, but then even the way it was done was such a depressed teenager kinds of cliche thing, it was really interesting that ambivalence about it.

That's a good question. I remember thinking it was interesting that Avary didn't show any of the bloodletting until after she was already dead, but I'm not sure if that was like an aesthetic thing or if he was trying to make some kind of a point.

I didn't really think it was out of place the first time I saw the movie, but for some reason it did seem to jar with the cynical tone when I watched it again. Maybe that tonal shift served some storytelling purpose, or maybe it was just a by-product of suicide itself being heavy subject matter. But it was another example of a character wanting an idealized version of another character, and then that other character's insensitivity to or ignorance of their feelings, so it does fit in some ways.

EDIT: this is going out on a bit of a limb here, but the girl who killed herself in the movie was the only character who wasn't looking for sex. Maybe the tragedy of the event (besides for the event itself) was that she fell for all the sweet, flowery concepts of romance that young kids in lust conjure up to get each other into bed (consciously or subconsciously). It's a dangerous game to play when the means seem more attractive than the end, because your entire relationship with the rest of the world is built on a lie, and you're the only one who doesn't know it. And also that might help explain (to myself, I guess) what I was driving at earlier, with the aesthetic remark, because the wrist-cutting is the closest thing to a sexual relationship with Sean that the girl will ever have.

That is such a great interpretation of the film, Ribbons. I agree with some of your points. But I think she's just as deluded as the rest of them with ideas about love and lust and ultimately she expresses it in a way that's just as romanticized and obsessed over and cliched as love or sex is. It's like she's just as stuck as everyone else in a shallow media-fed view of the world. The tragedy is she isn't pretty enough to achieve in that media saturated popularity contest world.

Ribbons wrote:EDIT: this is going out on a bit of a limb here, but the girl who killed herself in the movie was the only character who wasn't looking for sex. Maybe the tragedy of the event (besides for the event itself) was that she fell for all the sweet, flowery concepts of romance that young kids in lust conjure up to get each other into bed (consciously or subconsciously). It's a dangerous game to play when the means seem more attractive than the end, because your entire relationship with the rest of the world is built on a lie, and you're the only one who doesn't know it. And also that might help explain (to myself, I guess) what I was driving at earlier, with the aesthetic remark, because the wrist-cutting is the closest thing to a sexual relationship with Sean that the girl will ever have.

That is such a great interpretation of the film, Ribbons. I agree with some of your points. But I think she's just as deluded as the rest of them with ideas about love and lust and ultimately she expresses it in a way that's just as romanticized and obsessed over and cliched as love or sex is. It's like she's just as stuck as everyone else in a shallow media-fed view of the world. The tragedy is she isn't pretty enough to achieve in that media saturated popularity contest world.

Oh yeah, I definitely agree. If anything she might be the most deluded character in the film, she just doesn't realize it.